Hi Guys (& Gals)
Ho Hum......This issue was flagged years ago so it shouldn't be a big surprise except to newcomers to the industry. If you sit back and take a deep breath to get beyond the frustations and cast your mind back, way back.
Remember that the airlineswere the largest (combined) single civilian source of trade graduates. However they also wanted to reduce the amount of LAMES in their employ but maintain a proportionate number of workers in the hangar and workshops to meet their production demands. This brought about changes in the types of apprenticeships offered by the airlines - thus different trade qualifications for the graduate (not necessarily to LAME level). This was understandable because the airlines needed to manage its own costs, so lets not blame them but that had a significant effect on the industry in general. Thus some rearward slip with LAMES.
Meanwhile, the govenrment introduced new training schemes for apprentices, training providers merely had to (and still do) teach the training syllabus (which does not require an apprentice to be trained to LAME level) only to a trade qualification level which is set by another body. While all this has been taking place, the fact that the period needed to qualify a LAME to a competent (dual) licence level has not changed and neither has the regulator's requirements for qualification, so we can see a rearward slip in the industry.
The military produce well trained people for their own requirements and to a different qualification level again, so those leaving the military and wishing to join the civilian side of the industry had to (and still do) meet the regulator's requirements for qualification. The conversion from the military to the civilian side of things does not mean that the military personnel are lesser qualified or not as competent as their civil colleagues, it is simply that they have different qualifications and have to convert. Not all those that leave the military want to join the civilian aviation industry either. A bit more of a rearward slip.
Another contributor to the rearward slip was the reformation of the education system and the loss of the technical schools training program (years ago), the systemic acceptance of lesser education standards and the career choices available to students that have attained good results from their studies. Why would you want to enter an apprenticeship that only provides you with a half-way qualification upon graduation when other choices can provide much greater benefits? The aviation industry has to compete to attract people the same way that other industries do.
It would be reasonable to assume that once an apprentice has been indentured, the apprentice will complete his or her apprenticeship, but this is not necessarily the case. Apprentices like everyone else in the industry are exposed to its foibles and may have to change employers or work locations from time to time just to keep their apprenticeship going. That may mean a change in trade school (and its learning program) and other hardships as well - not a good thought for a young person and not necessarily a great incentive to continue training.
Organizations need to maintain a ratio of trades people to apprentices except where special consideration and permission is given by the training body, so not all maintenance facilities will be able to employ an apprentice. Those that do have to pay the prescribed wage, but they do not have to guarantee pristine working conditions, and so the rearward slip continues further.
The government acknowledges that there is a general shortage in the trades and is looking at ways to fast track training programs. This suggests that a fast track program will focus on specific skills only. Therefore the broad skills base of the current trades people will probably evaporate when they retire and we will have more "specialists" in the trades. The provisions for this aspect have already been included in the re-write of the "new" rules but it won't alleviate the operator's need for LAMES, just reduce their reliance on the number of LAMES they need to employ (within certain sectors of the industry).
I won't mention the point that pay should be commensurate with knowledge and skills, I'll leave that for another time, I think I've said enough.
Yeh, I wonder why there's a LAME shortage?